Allan Massie: It would not be a surprise if Murray becomes this year's champion. That's how good he is

FIRST, let us forget about Fred Perry and the decades that have passed since he won Wimbledon. The truth is, while we have had a few players on the fringe of the top class, it would have been a big surprise if any had won the title.

Mike Sangster, Roger Taylor and Tim Henman all reached the semi-final - Henman four times - but got no further. Henman was a bit unlucky, in that two of his semi-finals were against Pete Sampras, the outstanding grass-court player of his generation. He also lost a semi to Goran Ivanisevic, who beat Pat Rafter in the final. Yet if Henman had won that match, he might well have lost to Rafter. Rafter, winner of the American title, had been beaten in the final by Sampras the previous year (2000) and belongs to a distinguished group of "the best players never to have won Wimbledon".

That list is topped by Ken Rosewall, four times a beaten finalist, twice as a young amateur, and then twice in the Open era, which began sixteen years after he first played at Wimbledon. Nevertheless he won eight majors - the Australian in 1953, 1955, 1971, 1972, the French in 1953, 1968, and the American in 1956 and 1970; proof that you can be a great player without a Wimbledon men's singles title. Ivan Lendl, twice a beaten finalist, losing to Boris Becker and Pat Cash, is another in this category. Then there was Mats Wilander, who, like Rosewall, won the Australian, French and American titles, but never Wimbledon. Andy Roddick is in the same category. A former American champion, he has lost three finals, each time to Roger Federer. He came very close to winning the title two years ago, when he went down 14-16 in the fifth set, having beaten Andy Murray in the semi-final.

Which brings one to Murray himself. The point of this preamble should be doubly clear. First, he is incomparably the best British player of the modern era. Henman reached six Major semi-finals in all (the French and the American as well as Wimbledon) and was briefly ranked 4 in the world. Murray has already been in three finals (the Australian twice, and the American) and has reached the semi-final at Wimbledon (twice) and at Roland Garros. Moreover he is firmly established as the world number 4, and has been, for a short time, ranked 3. Second, however, being one of the best players in the world doesn't guarantee you a Wimbledon crown.

Can he do it? Yes, of course. Will he? Well, yes, he may. That's as much really as can be said with confidence. The game is very tough at the top, and the three players above him are all masters. Federer and Nadal are two of the greatest of all time, and Novak Djokovic's form this year has been quite remarkable. It is, one may say, a considerable achievement for Murray to be bracketed with them. Bjorn Borg said the other day that this was going to be "a special Wimbledon. I don't think it has ever been so exciting with four great players. There's such a big gap between them and the rest." In Borg's day there were three: Borg, Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe, but even these three weren't quite so far ahead of the rest as Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray are now.

So, if Murray is to win the title, he will probably have to beat two of them, Nadal in the semi and whichever comes through the other half of the draw. I say "probably" rather than "almost certainly", because surprises are always possible, and Wimbledon does sometimes throw up an unexpected finalist. One of McEnroe's finals was against Chris Lewis of New Zealand, one of Sampras's against Cedric Pioline of France. Nevertheless, while the golf Open Championship frequently produces surprise winners (Ben Curtis and Todd Hamilton, for example), Wimbledon rarely does. In 2001 Goran Ivanisevic, near the end of his career after injuries and surgery, needed a wild card to get in, so his victory was surprising. Yet he had reached three previous finals, losing once to Andre Agassi, twice to Sampras.

Murray has beaten Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in Masters' finals (over three sets). So he is capable of winning Wimbledon, even though he may be better suited to the American championship at Flushing Meadow. At his best, as against Roddick in the semi-final at Queen's, he plays marvellous tennis. If his serve holds up, and his first serve percentage is high, he can win the title - though one should always remember that there are stumbling-blocks on the way to the last four.

One shouldn't expect him to win, simply because Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are so very good. Nevertheless it would not be a surprise if he becomes this year's champion. That's how good he is. But his rivals all have one big advantage; they have all won majors. And Federer in Paris, on his least favourite surface, played better than he has generally done for a couple of years. Borg makes him favourite. Yet I suspect Murray might fancy a final against Federer more than one against Djokovic. Of course, to get there, he will probably have to beat Nadal. Piece of cake? Well, no.